crosshair, third person and zoom needs to be rookie difficulty

[BL1P 35]

Every post you make is dripping with condescension. You're not the only person who has been playing this series for a long time. And, since you're apparently so experienced with this series, you might remember that the difficulty settings w now are the same as they were in 2001.

I agree with you m8 time for a change :)

[Bouben 3]

yes crosshairs are not the devil, but you can damn well play without them and it is not a ridiculous challenge like you try to make it look in your failed attempt at a clever analogy.

You cannot damn well play without them if you use aiming deadzone. It is a lame and crippled experience. If you do not use aiming deadzone, then any experienced player is able to comfortably play without crosshair as all you got to do is stare at the centre of the screen and watch the bullet impact to adjust your aim. So in that case, what is the point of removing the crosshair anyway? It is useless against distant targets so you have to use your sights for aiming anyway.

i'm playing on EUTW right now without third person or crosshair. very strange. i don't feel like i lost all my senses.

Of course, it is playable but that is not my point. My point is, that somebody likes to describe such gameplay as "realistic". And that is my problem with that - especially in a game like Arma.

I play in first person all the time. Much more immersive for me. But I would not call it "more realistic" because of the limitations it brings to the experience (and I am not saying that you are calling it "realistic" - I am just trying to explain my motivation in this discussion).

[roshnak 41]

well yea. i personally have no problem with crosshairs. i just like to play without sometimes (especially PvP). that's just my personal preference since it feels good to me.

3rd person on the other hand is overrepresented in arma, sadly. it's the only thing i really have a problem with since it simply ruins realistic situations like "oh i'm gonna hide in this bush, but i will have to stick my head out to look. will i do it?" or "i'm gonna flank around this wall and see if i can get the guy from behind".

instead it's more like "i'm gonna become an all seeing bush and pop out once i see people turn their back" and "i will keep my hover cam on this guy while i use the wall as cover while flanking around him".

the most popular PvP mode wasteland is mostly played with "hover cam" which is the main reason i don't play it next to bad performance and too much walking ;)

Yeah, I've stated multiple times that third person could probably be removed from Veteran difficulty. There's really only one person in the thread who is arguing otherwise, and even he isn't exactly taking a hardline stance on the matter.

As much as some people are saying that they just want to change some difficulty options, their implication is that their way of playing is the right way and anyone who plays differently is bad or doing it wrong. They are incredibly aggressive in stating their opinions and shoot down any arguments or reasoning against them with dismissive comments insinuating anyone who disagrees with them is either new or come from other games and thus their opinions are less valid.

This game isn't focused on competition. It's not the kind of game you can play wrong.

Edited June 27, 2014 by roshnak

[bad benson 1733]

Of course, it is playable but that is not my point. My point is, that somebody likes to describe such gameplay as "realistic". And that is my problem with that - especially in a game like Arma.

I play in first person all the time. Much more immersive for me. But I would not call it "more realistic" because of the limitations it brings to the experience (and I am not saying that you are calling it "realistic" - I am just trying to explain my motivation in this discussion).

yea no. first person is not more realistic than 3rd person...riiiight.

even with your ridiculous body awareness argument it is more realistic than 3rd person. it simply is. no backwards weird logic will change that. or do you have the ability to feel through walls in real life? oh right, bigger field of view in real life lets you look around corners. we all experience that daily...

the exploits (even against AI) largely outweigh the alleged limitations 1st person brings with it. yes you can't cheat with 1st person and you can't even look at yourself from a floating perspective behind you, how unrealistic...

just ridiculous. how can you even argue that? it's beyond me. this last post just shows how out there your logic is and it's a perfect example of the typical player that rationalises convenient stuff they got used to with outlandish pseudo scientific wannabe lectures about how the human body works.

i don't believe that you actually play 1st person. it seems like you just try to cheaply try to join in so it isn't as obvious where you really stand. just read what you wrote. you supposedly prefer 1st person for its immersion eventhough it limits the experience. what?

no one tells you to "call it more realistic". call it what you want. i don't give a shit. i know the facts because i don't lack common sense like you.

This game isn't focused on competition. It's not the kind of game you can play wrong.

i disagree on the first part and i agree on the second. since the first part kinda contradicts the second. there was a very constant PvP community in arma 2 and probably in the earlier games too.

i think there's way too much subtext of coop player vs PvP player going on in these kind of threads. coop only/mainly players feel offended eventhough they aren't even addressed. especially first person is most heated as a topic when it comes to PvP. and that's usually what the people who criticize 3rd person talk about. i've seen this "don't tell me how to play my game" - nonsense a lot before. almost like throwing themselves into a bullet that wasn't meant for them.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Bad Benson

[das attorney 857]

Hmm. It seems there is much bad blood in this thread as it is a contentious issue.

Can someone answer this for me please? It's not directed specifically against any poster in this thread, but I'd like to know anyway.

I see lot's of threads in this forum and various DayZ forums from players who say that using first person view in the Arma series gives them motion sickness or other inner ear based problems that make them vomit on their mousemat or whatever.

I do not experience this so I cannot confirm or deny eitherway.

When I switch on Battlefield or COD, they are first person too and to me look exactly the same as Arma does in first person. Moving about in COD/BF/A3 is essentially the same in FP. Stuff comes into your viewport and stuff goes out. I have checked out respective forums for those games extensively and found little in the way of their customers complaining that the first person view in the first person shooter that they bought makes them sick.

So why so many people find Arma to trigger physical upset?

Maybe there is something I'm not getting. I even got my brother (who has a brilliant mind addled with heavy Epilepsy) to play some and he didn't notice any difference from other first person shooters and it didn't make him sick or do that thing he does with his eyes when everything's about to head south.

I understand that some people find that FP makes them ill, but it seems that there's a disproportionate amount of people saying the same thing.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Das Attorney

[roshnak 41]

If people are actually experiencing motion sickness in first person view in Arma, then they would most likely experience the same thing in other FPS games. It's not unheard of.

Many people who got hooked on DayZ didn't come from other FPS games. They came from games like EVE Online, which support similar sandbox PVP gameplay.

Alternatively, some of them probably heard someone else mention having that problem and it sounded like a good justification for keeping third person in.

Edit:

i disagree on the first part and i agree on the second. since the first part kinda contradicts the second. there was a very constant PvP community in arma 2 and probably in the earlier games too. .

I don't think my statements were contradictory. What I mean why I say "competition focused" is that it would make a terrible sport or board game. It's not balanced. It doesn't have a defined set of rules. It's got a really low skill ceiling. It would make for a poor esport (not that that's a limiting factor these days).

I'm not saying you can't have fun playing competitive game modes in Arma. You can have fun racing cars in Arma, too, but that doesn't make it a racing game.

Edited June 27, 2014 by roshnak

[das attorney 857]

Alternatively, some of them probably heard someone else mention having that problem and it sounded like a good justification for keeping third person in.

That's kind of where I was going with that. ;)

[bad benson 1733]

I don't think my statements were contradictory. What I mean why I say "competition focused" is that it would make a terrible sport or board game. It's not balanced. It doesn't have a defined set of rules. It's got a really low skill ceiling. It would make for a poor esport (not that that's a limiting factor these days).

I'm not saying you can't have fun playing competitive game modes in Arma. You can have fun racing cars in Arma, too, but that doesn't make it a racing game.

esports friendly or not. 3rd person is not suiting for PvP (competing against others, league or not), period. especially not if the game wants to be some kind of realistic tactical military simulation type of thing. so i don't get what you mean. no one mentioned esports as a reason. nor did anyone demand to turn arma into some kind of esports/PvP only game.

besides, i'm pretty sure there are clan wars and at least one league in arma. rules and balance can easily be created by the mission maker. so comparing the tactical PvP aspect to the karts is plain wrong since it doesn't match up with reality.

i just think that people like to misunderstand the demand for better difficulty levels as a request to limit the game or something. i don't understand why to be honest. nothing would change except admins would set difficulty more conciously, if they really wanted 3rd person and there would be less "accidental" 3rd person. i fail to see how that is restricting any 3rd person fanatics. is this about "don't take 20% of my 95% of 3rd person servers from me"? pfft

I'd say at least 10% of those servers sit on "regular" with 3rd person just because it's the default It's not exactly trivial to change that for a dedi server.

this post from the first page outlines the problem well enough. people get all butthurt and assume stuff eventhough different difficulty settings would keep no one at all from setting up their server exactly like they are now. the fear of restriction is irrational and as much a cheap argument as the motion sickness one. "oh but it affects me physically, that makes you a bad person for wanting to force it on me". don't play games if they make you puke and no, nothing will be forced on you.

[roshnak 41]

esports friendly or not. 3rd person is not suiting for PvP (competing against others, league or not), period. especially not if the game wants to be some kind of realistic tactical military simulation type of thing. so i don't get what you mean. no one mentioned esports as a reason. nor did anyone demand to turn arma into some kind of esports/PvP only game.

besides, i'm pretty sure there are clan wars and at least one league in arma. rules and balance can easily be created by the mission maker. so comparing the tactical PvP aspect to the karts is plain wrong since it doesn't match up with reality.

i just think that people like to misunderstand the demand for better difficulty levels as a request to limit the game or something. i don't understand why to be honest. nothing would change except admins would set difficulty more conciously, if they really wanted 3rd person and there would be less "accidental" 3rd person. i fail to see how that is restricting any 3rd person fanatics. is this about "don't take 20% of my 95% of 3rd person servers from me"? pfft

this post from the first page outlines the problem well enough. people get all butthurt and assume stuff eventhough different difficulty settings would keep no one at all from setting up their server exactly like they are now. the fear of restriction is irrational and as much a cheap argument as the motion sickness one. "oh but it affects me physically, that makes you a bad person for wanting to force it on me". don't play games if they make you puke and no, nothing will be forced on you.

Yeah, I've stated multiple times that I'm not opposed to removing third person from the Veteran difficulty level. The OP is requesting the removal of three options from the Regular difficulty setting. Why are you only picking the one that almost no one disagrees with to defend?

Also, the problem with the OP's request is that it's not forcing people to pick better difficulty settings. What the OP wants is for the default options to be the way he wants the game to be played. Since it's safe to assume that many servers have never had their difficulty changed from the defaults, that is essentially asking for the game to force most people to play the way he wants the game to be played. If you really want to give people the option and make it less likely that admins just never touch the difficulty options, I already already suggested changing the name from "Difficulty" to "Realism" or something, moving the AI difficulty settings to a separate dialogue, and making dedicated server admins pick one at server start instead of defaulting it to Regular. This removes the misconception that people may have that changing those settings makes the game harder instead of just different, as well as making sure that settings aren't they way they are just because the admin was lazy.

I'm also not sure why you keep accusing people of getting butthurt. Only one person was moderately aggressive in disagreeing. Almost everyone else who disagreed was reasonable and gave explanations or justifications for why things are the way they are. By contrast, many of the people advocating for changing the default settings have been increasingly hostile and condescending. If you would like, I can pull quotes from the thread.

[defk0n_NL 2]

What the OP wants is for the default options to be the way he wants the game to be played. Since it's safe to assume that many servers have never had their difficulty changed from the defaults, that is essentially asking for the game to force most people to play the way he wants the game to be played.

Im pretty sure this game was meant to be played first person without crosshair.

Go look on the official arma 3 youtube channel.

the entire community guide was shot in first person.

Arma 3 - 'E3 2012 Sneak Preview' Trailer

infantry was shot in first person without crosshair with occasional landscape shots in 3rd person.

Arma 3 - '2013 Sneak Preview' Trailer

infantry was shot in first person without crosshair

Arma 3 - 'Lighting Showcase' Trailer

infantrywas shot in first person without crosshair

Arma 3 - Zeus DLC Trailer

infantry was shot in first person without crosshair

These are all official arma 3 video's. Not to mention the vocal opinion of rocket stating that he wants DayZ to be first person but is basically stuck between a rock and a hard place, fan boy wise

So BIS advertises the game mostly in first person without crosshairs, how unreasonable of me to expect the game to default to first person without crosshairs.

[dmarkwick 261]

Well, to interject, IMO the crosshair is a game enhancer not a detractor. For me, it's simply a visual indicator where my weapon is actually pointing because I don't have the kinisthetic feedback of actually holding the weapon. Also, I use TrackIR so my weapon direction is not necessarily center screen. Plus, there is some amount of random variance between crosshair and actual weapon direction right?

In ArmA, the weapon is always shouldered, there is no firing from the hip. As such it's not unreasonable to have such a visual feedback as a crosshair. As has been mentioned before it also is useful to see if your weapon in blocked by geometry due to lack of kinisthetic feedback that we take for granted IRL.

using a crosshair is unrealistic because there is no crosshair on your vision, that is the end of the argument.

any bs you come up with about body movement is irrelevant as the crosshair does not exist in your sight.

Improve awareness of gun position not add a crosshair.

Playing "realistically" on a PC isn't just all about removing/denying onscreen info because you can't see that info printed on your eyesight IRL. It's about reasonable analogs for info you should have, but which you don't have becuase you're sitting in a chair looking at the world through a letterbox and using a mouse & a button to look & move about. I find it unrealistic to glance down at my legs or try to judge how far away the ground is when I wish to know what stance I'm in. For me, the stance indicator is a reasonable analog for my sense of what stance my body is in. In a similar way the crosshair, for me, lets me know what direction I'm pointing my (shouldered) gun in, again a perfectly reasonable kinisthetic analog for senses that I'm missing.

However, this is all subjective I guess, which is why there are options. :)

The zoom issue.... not really an issue because it's not really zoom. When "zoomed" in you're actually at the 1:1 visual ratio you should be at, but because of FoV considerations there is a default "zoom out" view so you can navigate the world in a useful fashion. With permanent 1:1 the feeling of playing the game with a cardboard box over your head & a hole cut in the front is even worse.

3rd person - old argument :) most people will agree that it serves as a sort-of-cheat in MP. However, server admins keep allowing it, and they're paying the bill for the hosting. Their choice entirely. I might suggest third person be disabled by default for MP only, in that way we could be sure any 3rd person setup is a deliberate choice.

Edited June 27, 2014 by DMarkwick

[Bouben 3]

yea no. first person is not more realistic than 3rd person...riiiight.

even with your ridiculous body awareness argument it is more realistic than 3rd person. it simply is. no backwards weird logic will change that. or do you have the ability to feel through walls in real life? oh right, bigger field of view in real life lets you look around corners. we all experience that daily...

the exploits (even against AI) largely outweigh the alleged limitations 1st person brings with it. yes you can't cheat with 1st person and you can't even look at yourself from a floating perspective behind you, how unrealistic...

just ridiculous. how can you even argue that? it's beyond me. this last post just shows how out there your logic is and it's a perfect example of the typical player that rationalises convenient stuff they got used to with outlandish pseudo scientific wannabe lectures about how the human body works.

i don't believe that you actually play 1st person. it seems like you just try to cheaply try to join in so it isn't as obvious where you really stand. just read what you wrote. you supposedly prefer 1st person for its immersion eventhough it limits the experience. what?

no one tells you to "call it more realistic". call it what you want. i don't give a shit. i know the facts because i don't lack common sense like you.

I play in the 1st person 95% of the time I play Arma. I use 3rd person when I use vehicles (and since I mainly enjoy being an infantryman I don't use them a lot).

Yes, you are right, 1st person is more realistic. I got lost in my logic with that. We can agree on that and I apologize for bad formulation.

I would not, however, call the body situational awareness argument as "ridiculous". I think it is the very thing that is, in its functionality, more realistic in 3rd person than in 1st person even if it looks completely unrealistic (that you can see your body out of your body). For example, seeing how well your virtual entity is hidden behind an obstacle is a vital information that 1st person view fails to deliver. Such information is no problem to get in real life as you have much better body awareness. But I agree with you that the exploitability of 3rd person view is much bigger than the good things it does. And, to be honest, I would be able to cope with 3rd person view being out of the game completely (many servers already force that anyway).

My point with crosshairs and zoom have not changed, however.

As I have already written, I would not disable crosshairs (absolutely crippling and less realistic with aiming deadzone) but make their centre bigger so that the precision is decreased. I can, however, definitely agree with you that it brings more tension to the gameplay if the crosshair is disabled. But such tension is similar to not being able to cope with an enemy if you are crippled in some way. So disabling it is not a good thing in my opinion.

I also want to apologize to you and other guys in this thread if I came out as being arrogant and rude. I was tired and had a not so good day. I am sorry for that.

[bad benson 1733]

Yeah, I've stated multiple times that I'm not opposed to removing third person from the Veteran difficulty level. The OP is requesting the removal of three options from the Regular difficulty setting. Why are you only picking the one that almost no one disagrees with to defend?

can you tell me why you always think i'm talking specifically to you? i think it was obvious that i was responding to Bouben about 3rd person most of the time...that's my focus in each post. i make general staements about people's reaction to this kind of stuff because it happened before many times also with JUST 3rd person as a topic with just the same arguments. i stated multiple times that i don't agree with every detail of the OP. no i dea why you repeat multiple times to me that you agree on 3rd person. i never said you didn't.

I would not, however, call the body situational awareness argument as "ridiculous". I think it is the very thing that is, in its functionality, more realistic in 3rd person than in 1st person even if it looks completely unrealistic (that you can see your body out of your body). For example, seeing how well your virtual entity is hidden behind an obstacle is a vital information that 1st person view fails to deliver.

that is my point. in the context of calling one more realistic than the other it's ridiculous since the fact that you can do super human things in 3rd outweigh easily the fact that you are missing some information in 1st person, which btw you can still get (freelook) just with more effort. i know what you mean about more awareness. it has been said many times before and on its own it can make sense. but not in the context of realism of 1st p vs 3rd p, no.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Bad Benson

[ProfTournesol 956]

Playing "realistically" on a PC isn't just all about removing/denying onscreen info because you can't see that info printed on your eyesight IRL.

Amen.

[roshnak 41]

can you tell me why you always think i'm talking specifically to you? i think it was obvious that i was responding to Bouben about 3rd person most of the time...that's my focus in each post. i make general staements about people's reaction to this kind of stuff because it happened before many times also with JUST 3rd person as a topic with just the same arguments. i stated multiple times that i don't agree with every detail of the OP. no i dea why you repeat multiple times to me that you agree on 3rd person. i never said you didn't.

Well, the fact that you quoted me in your reply sort of gave me the impression that you were replying to me.

The guy you apparently are arguing with is barely defending third person in its current state, either. The very first thing he said about third person was, "Could be improved so that it is not so easy to exploit." Maybe don't make generalized statements about what people's opinions are when those opinions aren't being expressed in this thread.

[bad benson 1733]

Well, the fact that you quoted me in your reply sort of gave me the impression that you were replying to me.

The guy you apparently are arguing with is barely defending third person in its current state, either. The very first thing he said about third person was, "Could be improved so that it is not so easy to exploit." Maybe don't make generalized statements about what people's opinions are when those opinions aren't being expressed in this thread.

can you stop? go back to post #53. you quoted my post about 3rd person going on to say that arma is not focused on competition and can't be played wrong, after quoting me talking about 3rd person. would you have said not everything that is mentioned in the OP is a problem for "fair" PvP, fine. you didn't. so don't blame me for the misunderstanding.

3rd person is the only feature that is a problem in competitive gameplay because it gives an unfair advantage based on position in many situations. no one in their right mind would say crosshairs are unfair since there is no situation where they give an unequal advantage.

so i obviously assumed you are still talking about 3rd person with all that "can't be played the wrong way, cuz isn't competitive" stuff. hence me differentiating between crosshairs as preference and 3rd person as game breaking earlier. you are just mixing up the realism debate with the "right way because fair/not cheating" debate. you set the focus on competitiveness yourself...

this is what happens when the arguments are all over the place..

the guy i was arguing with said 3rd person is more realistic than 1st...just read the exchange dude. everything i said to him was based on what he said himself. i did not ignore his first post nor did i misrepresent his opinion. stop saying so!

just because i agree that no crosshairs, if you ignore the deadzone problem which i wasn't aware of, or stuff like no ammo HUD (no i don't hate it nor do i play exclusively without it) are more realistic doesn't mean that i have automatically the same exact attitudes like the people i agree with on that.

and yes i'm aggressive about the 3rd person topic because i'm tired of hearing the same old bullshit over and over. yes it happened before and a lot in other threads (including dayZ forums). THAT is what i was refering to. i already said that. you act like i quoted people out of context..

Also, the problem with the OP's request is that it's not forcing people to pick better difficulty settings. What the OP wants is for the default options to be the way he wants the game to be played.

so the problem is that people would have to switch to "rookie mode" (thread title) and nothing would change? is that the whole upset? default option. nothing changes except admins and SP players making concious decisions.

attitude or no attitude. seems like an overreaction to me. i mean you are basically doing the same by saying how "regular" mode is now, is how the game is meant to be played since you agree that "regular" mode is just that. the ultimate bar that defines that instead of just a default option.

i guess now it should be clear what i mean by butthurt if the only real problem is clicking some options and thus labeling yourself as a "rookie" (not my view but seems to be the core of this). eventhough i agree on elitist tendencies i have to say that the other side is more pracmatic and rational by focusing on the server problem rather than personal feelings.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Bad Benson

[BL1P 35]

@DMarkwick

I agree with pritty much all your saying m8.

I guess for me I can just tell which way I am facing because my gun is pointing that way because I don't use TrakIR or aiming deadpoint.

I can see why a visual indication of which way you are facing when using said points would be useful indeed.

If said indication needs to be crosshair is another topic for debate maybe :).

As for the original debate which I guess is... should the easy settings be the default settings recommended by bis.

I guess that's upto BIS and how they want to portray the game.

My vote would be NO they shouldn't they should promote the more simulator style game play that arma is unique for.

But hey to quote you :)

"However, this is all subjective I guess, which is why there are options."

[roshnak 41]

and yes i'm aggressive about the 3rd person topic because i'm tired of hearing the same old bullshit over and over. yes it happened before and a lot in other threads (including dayZ forums). THAT is what i was refering to. i already said that. you act like i quoted people out of context...

I didn't act like you quoted people of context and I never implied that your opinions are as aggressive as others posting in this thread. All I'm saying is that Bouben already admitted that 3rd person perspective, in it's current implementation, can be exploited.

The reason that I'm saying that you shouldn't necessarily base the default difficulty settings around an absolutely fair and balanced competitive PVP scenario is that the game isn't inherently competitive for PVP focused. You've already stated that players can and do institute their own rules in order to make Arma into a good competitive game (I would argue that it's still not that good). If that's the case, what does it hurt to assume that they would also change default difficulty settings?

so the problem is that people would have to switch to "rookie mode" (thread title) and nothing would change? is that the whole upset? default option. nothing changes except admins and SP players making concious decisions.

attitude or no attitude. seems like an overreaction to me. i mean you are basically doing the same by saying how "regular" mode is now, is how the game is meant to be played since you agree that "regular" mode is just that. the ultimate bar that defines that instead of just a default option.

i guess now it should be clear what i mean by butthurt if the only real problem is clicking some options and thus labeling yourself as a "rookie" (not my view but seems to be the core of this). eventhough i agree on elitist tendencies i have to say that the other side is more pracmatic and rational by focusing on the server problem rather than personal feelings.

By contrast, what's the problem with just clicking some options and just labeling yourself a "veteran?" This has nothing to do with personal feelings. I don't know why you keep bringing that into it.

You can't argue that "nothing changes except admins [...] make conscious decisions" because a large portion of the argument for changing the default settings is that admins aren't making conscious decisions now. They just leave things default. How can you assume that they would make conscious decisions after things are changed? That is why I say that what people advocating for changing the default options are really asking for is to have everyone play the game the way they think is right, instead of actually forcing people to use the options menu.

If you reread my post, I made suggestions that would significantly reduce the likelihood that any server has third person and crosshairs enabled just because they are the default option. They were as follows:

-Decouple AI difficulty settings from the gameplay options (third person, crosshair) settings. After all, they kind of already are decoupled. They're in a separate dialogue box inside of the Difficulty options. Make that the new difficulty settings.

-Change the current gameplay options (third person, crosshair) label from "Difficulty" to "Realism" or something similar, in order to minimize confusion over whether those options make the game harder or just different.

-Make server ask admins choose both the AI difficulty and realism settings on server start (Please choose a realism setting: 0 - Arcade, 1 - Simplified, 2 - Realistic, 3 - Hardcore). Do not have default settings. Obviously admins should be able to set up default settings if they choose to (create a .cfg file or whatever). This would allow server admins with "advanced" knowledge to set up difficulty settings just like they do now, but still force new admins who are too lazy to do that to at least choose a realism setting on server start. Or, hey, they could

I guess for me I can just tell which way I am facing because my gun is pointing that way because I don't use TrakIR or aiming deadpoint.

I can see why a visual indication of which way you are facing when using said points would be useful indeed.

If said indication needs to be crosshair is another topic for debate maybe :)."

I think you're sort of misunderstanding the situation with TrackIR. You don't need the crosshair to know where your body is pointing, because it's pretty easy to know that your head is twisted a certain amount. You need the crosshair to still have a rough idea of where you're aiming when your gun isn't constantly tied to the center of the screen. It's basically just an extension of the problem of knowing where your gun is pointing with the aiming deadzone enabled.

I also still think you're overestimating the utility of the crosshair for aiming beyond a certain distance. Although, some people (including myself) have also said they would be okay with crosshairs being more expanded than they currently are.

Edited June 27, 2014 by roshnak

[BL1P 35]

I think you're sort of misunderstanding the situation with TrackIR. You don't need the crosshair to know where your body is pointing, because it's pretty easy to know that your head is twisted a certain amount. You need the crosshair to still have a rough idea of where you're aiming when your gun isn't constantly tied to the center of the screen. It's basically just an extension of the problem of knowing where your gun is pointing with the aiming deadzone enabled.

I also still think you're overestimating the utility of the crosshair for aiming beyond a certain distance. Although, some people (including myself) have also said they would be okay with crosshairs being more expanded than they currently are.

Ok lets agree to disagree on the cross-hair and the zoom etc :)
What about should the easy settings be the default settings recommended by BIS ?
I think this is what this is all about in the end.
Should the recommended by BIS default settings be the ones currently used.
I know we have options and such but by making a default setting BIS is basically saying we recommend these settings :- (even if they don't say it per-say they imply it)

Regular

   
           Armor=1;
           FriendlyTag=1;
           EnemyTag=0;
           MineTag=1;
           HUD=1;
           HUDPerm=1;
           HUDWp=1;
           HUDWpPerm=1;
           HUDGroupInfo=1;
           AutoSpot=1;
           Map=1;
           WeaponCursor=1;
           AutoGuideAT=1;
           ClockIndicator=1;
           3rdPersonView=1;
           UltraAI=0;
           CameraShake=1;
           UnlimitedSaves=1;
           DeathMessages=1;
           NetStats=1;
           VonID=1;
           ExtendetInfoType=1;

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Dedicated_Server#.2A.2A.2A.2A.Arma3Profile

Myself I would say No don't promote the game in its most simplistic form aim higher. but hey that might come across as condescending :)

Edited June 27, 2014 by BL1P

[roshnak 41]

Ok lets agree to disagree on the cross-hair and the zoom etc :)

What about should the easy settings be the default settings recommended by BIS ?

I think this is what this is all about in the end.

Should the recommended by BIS default settings be the ones currently used.

I know we have options and such but by making a default setting BIS is basically saying we recommend these settings :- (even if they don't say it per-say they imply it)

Myself I would say No don't promote the game in its most simplistic form aim higher. but hey that might come across as condescending :)

Well, like I said, I kind of just reject the whole idea that the crosshair, HUD settings, and third person perspective should be tied to difficulty. I think they should be completely separate options.

I also disagree the idea that crosshairs make the game "simple" or "easy" instead of just "different." All of the hardest, most skill based shooters ever made have had crosshairs (and no iron sights). While flight sims, including the most niche, hardcore of the bunch, almost universally have a zoom function.

[bad benson 1733]

I didn't act like you quoted people of context and I never implied that your opinions are as aggressive as others posting in this thread. All I'm saying is that Bouben already admitted that 3rd person perspective, in it's current implementation, can be exploited.

yea you keep repeating that for no apparent reason...i never said he didn't. i was arguing with him about how third person is far from realistic, even further than 1st person. no idea why you insist on making me repeat that.

By contrast, what's the problem with just clicking some options and just labeling yourself a "veteran?"

uhm no you can't turn it around like that as you will see in the following...

You can't argue that "nothing changes except admins [...] make conscious decisions" because a large portion of the argument for changing the default settings is that admins aren't making conscious decisions now. They just leave things default. How can you assume that they would make conscious decisions after things are changed? That is why I say that what people advocating for changing the default options are really asking for is to have everyone play the game the way they think is right, instead of actually forcing people to use the options menu.

that is a really messed up point of view tbh. so basically one side is happy about being lucky that the default settings represent their view. how is one view not forced on the other side then right now? so you say admins don't give a shit either way and who ever doesn't have the luck of being represented by the default difficulty settings is boned? nice approach. very fair.

i see what you mean now but it's besides the point.

just apply it to the reality of arma PvP and the server situation and you will see my point. i can only bring up wasteland again since it's the most popular pvp mode. the outcome would be that admins who really want 3rd person (they don't seem to have a problem with it now and they know damn well about its "advantages") would activate it on their own. if they really want it they will do that. if not, they don't seem to care and the outcome would be as random as it is now with maybe more of a shift towards 1st person which you seriously can't be afraid of looking at the current percentages. in any case the current situation is not more fair than your dark prophecy.

and, most important, that would be more fair since 1st person doesn't really break coop like 3rd person does PvP. you can't just take any point and turn it around. it's not that simple.

AGAIN: admins not giving a shit breaks one way of playing with the current settings. all you are talking about is personal preference. i don't care how people play and i myself play coop in 3rd person most of the time, even when i host myself, for the same reason. my game is set on regular and i always forget to change settings.

-Decouple AI difficulty settings from the gameplay options (third person, crosshair) settings. After all, they kind of already are decoupled. They're in a separate dialogue box inside of the Difficulty options. Make that the new difficulty settings.

-Change the current gameplay options (third person, crosshair) label from "Difficulty" to "Realism" or something similar, in order to minimize confusion over whether those options make the game harder or just different.

-Make server ask admins choose both the AI difficulty and realism settings on server start (Please choose a realism setting: 0 - Arcade, 1 - Simplified, 2 - Realistic, 3 - Hardcore). Do not have default settings. Obviously admins should be able to set up default settings if they choose to (create a .cfg file or whatever). This would allow server admins with "advanced" knowledge to set up difficulty settings just like they do now, but still force new admins who are too lazy to do that to at least choose a realism setting on server start. Or, hey, they could

i especially like the 3rd point. having something pop up on server start. maybe even a vote system then you'd get real results. although i also like DMarkwick's straight forward approach. instead of disabling 3rd person in MP i'd suggest though to base it on game type. the problem is though that these are defined inside the mission so the game itself would need to detect that and overwrite the server settings i guess. it's clear that a good solution is needed.

EDIT:

All of the hardest, most skill based shooters ever made have had crosshairs (and no iron sights).

exactly. no ironsights. who would ever play without crosshair AND without ironsights? kind of weakens that argument quite a bit. also the "most skill based shooters ever made" is excluding PR, insurgency and RO? incidently the ones that like arma openly set their focus on realism. the fact that you bring that up with emphasis on "skill based" shows exactly what i meant about personal feelings. it's like people get offended when it's pointed out that their prefered settings might be easier and yes in some cases less realistic.

either way i don't think it will ever change. so what's the point really..

Edited June 28, 2014 by Bad Benson

[roshnak 41]

that is a really messed up point of view tbh. so basically one side is happy about being lucky that the default settings represent their view. how is one view not forced on the other side then right now? so you say admins don't give a shit either way and who ever doesn't have the luck of being represented by the default difficulty settings is boned? nice approach. very fair.

Except that's not my point of view. I said that a better solution would be to find ways to force admins to look at the options and change them if they so desired.

I also really don't care what server admins do. They can enable or disable third person and crosshairs at their leisure. I don't play often on public servers. The servers that I do play on often have third person disabled. I agree that there are situations where it could be exploited in PVP. What I take issue with is that a couple of people are trying to force their opinions about how to play the game down everyone else's throat because they think the game isn't "hardcore" enough. Not even two pages ago defkon_NL made a post focused on nothing but how the game was "meant to be played."

exactly. no ironsights. who would ever play without crosshair AND without ironsights? kind of weakens that argument quite a bit. also the "most skill based shooters ever made" is excluding PR, insurgency and RO? incidently the ones that like arma openly set their focus on realism. the fact that you bring that up with emphasis on "skill based" shows exactly what i meant about personal feelings. it's like people get offended when it's pointed out that their prefered settings might be easier and yes in some cases less realistic.

I never suggested that it would make sense to have a game without crosshairs or iron sights, so I'm not sure why you think I did. What I did suggest earlier in the thread is that it could potentially make sense for a game to have crosshairs and iron sights. The crosshairs in Arma are already significantly less precise than in other shooters. Numerous people have made strong arguments in favor of features like crosshairs.

Also, yeah PR, Insurgency, and Red Orchestra are not particularly skill based shooters. They're fun, but they don't require a substantial amount of skill to play and be good at. Especially not in comparison to games like Quake, which people can become almost mind bogglingly good at. Seriously, there are games out there where players can become so good that you won't win 99 out of 100 engagements with them. None of those games you mentioned are like those games. We're not talking about Chess vs Checkers here, we're talking Chess vs Clue (this is a bad analogy, Checkers requires an extremely high degree of skill to play at high levels).

Edit: The point is that bringing skill or difficulty into the equation at all is pointless, because crosshairs don't make a game inherently easier or harder.

[bad benson 1733]

Except that's not my point of view.

i'm pretty sure there are several people who posted here who a perfectly fine with the current situation. i saw your suggestions and i addressed them so no idea why you assume i didn't. starting to see a pattern here.

What I take issue with is that a couple of people are trying to force their opinions about how to play the game down everyone else's throat because they think the game isn't "hardcore" enough. Not even two pages ago defkon_NL made a post focused on nothing but how the game was "meant to be played."

fair enough. i tend to ignore these aspects because they have nothing to do with the game or how it can be improved. if you want to focus on that. fine

I never suggested that it would make sense to have a game without crosshairs or iron sights, so I'm not sure why you think I did. What I did suggest earlier in the thread is that it could potentially make sense for a game to have crosshairs and iron sights.

i didn't say you did. i was making a point which apparently didn't come across.

i was making the point about how obviously games that don't have ironsights (almost no game had them back then) have crosshairs. it does have nothing to do with skill. they will just be annoying to play without crosshairs. that'S why they have them.

Edit: The point is that bringing skill or difficulty into the equation at all is pointless, because crosshairs don't make a game inherently easier or harder.

none of these shooters have anything to do with the discussion. the skills developed there have nothing to do with arma gameplay. it's literally reflexes and twitch skills. and ofc having to bring up ironsights before shooting, learning different ironsights etc is an additional skill to learn. what makes you think otherwise? why then suggest to make them even bigger if already their presence has apparently no effect at all? you are contradicting yourself. no crosshairs is not just "different" as you put it. it's harder. how is that not crystal clear?!

we're not comparing entirely different games with crosshairs to arma without crosshairs. we're comparing arma with arma...so what you said there doesn't make much sense. it's just a super simplified way of comparing stuff.

it's very simple to see that by imagining quake with ironsights instead of crosshairs...voila. don't tell me it wouldn't be harder. you'd be insane to think so.

i have nothing against them but that just didn't make any sense.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Bad Benson

[roshnak 41]

none of these shooters have anything to do with the discussion. the skills developed there have nothing to do with arma gameplay. it's literally reflexes and twitch skills. and ofc having to bring up ironsights before shooting, learning different ironsights etc is an additional skill to learn. what makes you think otherwise? why then suggest to make them even bigger if already their presence has apparently no effect at all? you are contradicting yourself. no crosshairs is not just "different" as you put it. it's harder. how is that not crystal clear?!

we're not comparing entirely different games with crosshairs to arma without crosshairs. we're comparing arma with arma...so what you said there doesn't make much sense. it's just a super simplified way of comparing stuff.

it's very simple to see that by imagining quake with ironsights instead of crosshairs...voila. don't tell me it wouldn't be harder. you'd be insane to think so.

i have nothing against them but that just didn't make any sense.

Skill is skill. Arma is not a game that requires a high degree of skill. You specifically asked whether I was excluding RO and the like from the category of "skill based shooters." I was answering you by saying, "Yes, those games are not what people typically refer to as 'skill based shooters.'" There is no one who is "the best at Arma." No one is talking about who is in the top percentage of Arma players. You never run into someone and go, "Oh man, that's X, I'm going to lose." Arma is not a hard game to learn and play with or without crosshairs. As with any activity, there is room to learn and get better, but it's not on the same level as "skill based games." I don't know why anyone would argue this point. To reiterate, in response to anyone who says that crosshairs are easy mode, crosshairs do not make a game inherently easier or harder.

But, look, I get it, you don't think there is any value in comparing games with differing mechanics. You think we should, instead, just compare Arma with Arma. Fine, let's do that. Arma has always had crosshairs. Since the very beginning. In Arma 3, they were tweaked to fill a role distinct from iron sights, in that crosshairs were designed for close range shooting while iron sights were better for long range engagements. It seems to me that Arma was designed, at least partially, around the idea of having crosshairs in the game.

Edited June 28, 2014 by roshnak

[bad benson 1733]

But, look, I get it, you don't think there is any value in comparing games with differing mechanics. You think we should, instead, just compare Arma with Arma. Fine, let's do that. Arma has always had crosshairs. Since the very beginning. In Arma 3, they were tweaked to fill a role distinct from iron sights, in that crosshairs were designed for close range shooting while iron sights were better for long range engagements. It seems to me that Arma was designed, at least partially, around the idea of having crosshairs in the game.

you just don't get it...compare arma with crosshairs to arma without crosshairs (since that is what the frikkin topic is about). OBVIOUSLY shooting without the ironsights is easier with crosshairs since there is a frikkin thing on your screen that tells you "bullets go here" and you still have the ironsights. what do you not get? you overcomplicating the discussion won't change that. you just assume that your definition of skill based game is the ultimate and that's the end of it...

yea crosshairs serve a purpose in arma 3 to see if the barrel is clear now, that doesn't negate their main purpose which is aiming. you can go on nitpicking for ages (i won't) but that's a very simple to understand fact.

please don't quote me again so i don't feel the temptation to post again. i started feeling stupid about it 5 posts ago ;) let's agree to disagree or something..